U.S. carrier Sprint is said to be looking into the purchase of rival provider T-Mobile USA, which, if successful, would leave the nation dominated by only three major telecoms.

According to people familiar with the matter, the nation's third-largest wireless carrier is looking to put in a bid for fourth-largest T-Mobile, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The sources further claim Sprint is in the early stages of examining regulatory hurdles to the purported buy as it looks toward launching a bid in the first half of 2014. Depending on the stake Sprint attempts to buy, the deal could run upwards of $20 billion.

Looking at revenue for the nine months ending in September, a Sprint/T-Mobile consolidation could create a strong competitor to now-dominant Verizon and AT&T. As seen above, combined revenues for the third- and fourth-place telcos amounted to $35.8 billion over the nine-month period, compared to AT&T's roughly $45 billion and more than $51 billion for Verizon.

The success of Sprint's rumored takeover is already on shaky ground, however, as AT&T is still licking its wounds from a failed merger attempt just two years ago.

Interestingly, at the time, Sprint vehemently disagreed with the two companies' joining, to the point where it filed a formal petition with the FCC. AT&T's proposal was set at $39 billion.

Reportedly behind the T-Mobile takeover is Masayoshi Son, chief executive of Japan's SoftBank, which in July officially closed out a deal for controlling interest in Sprint. Son is known as an aggressive businessman and has expanded his communications technology empire through a series of acquisitions and takeovers.

The Journal further reports that Deutsche Telekom, current majority owners of T-Mobile USA, is mulling an exit from the U.S. market.

In all, a Sprint-T-Mobile fusion would bring together 53 million post-paid subscribers, compared to AT&T's 72 million and Verizon's 95 million.

Being a current T-Mobile customer, I would seriously consider switching to AT&T or Verizon if this happens. Sprint had its time in my area, and that time has passed -- hence the move to T-Mobile. I'm not interested in giving them any more of my money.

Seems to me, based on how well the two companies have been managed of late, it should be T-Mobile taking over Sprint wiith Sprint augmenting T-Mobile's GSM network and subscription model rather than the other way around.

Sprint seems to have been just one bungle after another ever since they took over Nextel and maybe even before that. T-Mobile on the other hand came out of the aborted AT&T merger totally inspired and rejuvenated. (The billion dollar disengagement fee and the additional frequencies from AT&T didn't hurt either.)

Both the DoJ and the FCC have already expressed that they don't want any of the Big 4 Mobile Carriers merging. For a company like Sprint, who is having a slow rollout of their LTE network, that along with how many current and former subscribers' complaints of how badly they're run from top to bottom, to possibly acquire T-Mobile, a company who has had a great year for 2013, this would be a nightmare for many consumers! Please have both the DoJ and the FCC intervene to block this possible acquisition immediately! In the meantime, let's find a way to start a petition to block this acquisition. God knows that Softbank's CEO will not stop at making a large bid!

Seems to me, based on how well the two companies have been managed of late, it should be T-Mobile taking over Sprint wiith Sprint augmenting T-Mobile's GSM network and subscription model rather than the other way around.

Sprint seems to have been just one bungle after another ever since they took over Nextel and maybe even before that. T-Mobile on the other hand came out of the aborted AT&T merger totally inspired and rejuvenated. (The billion dollar disengagement fee and the additional frequencies from AT&T didn't hurt either.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tundraboy

Seems to me, based on how well the two companies have been managed of late, it should be T-Mobile taking over Sprint wiith Sprint augmenting T-Mobile's GSM network and subscription model rather than the other way around.

Sprint seems to have been just one bungle after another ever since they took over Nextel and maybe even before that. T-Mobile on the other hand came out of the aborted AT&T merger totally inspired and rejuvenated. (The billion dollar disengagement fee and the additional frequencies from AT&T didn't hurt either.)

Don't talk about the network if you do not know what is really going on. Have you heard of network vision and do you know that sprint was acquired by SoftBank who had loads of money. Also when they acquired clearwire that made sprint have more sprectrum than all the other carriers combined. This deal is highly unikely any way because sprint is cdma and AT&T is gsm. Running two networks is very expensive that's why they rid of Nextel and used their low frequency band to enhance their coverage.

Don't talk about the network if you do not know what is really going on. Have you heard of network vision and do you know that sprint was acquired by SoftBank who had loads of money. Also when they acquired clearwire that made sprint have more sprectrum than all the other carriers combined. This deal is highly unikely any way because sprint is cdma and AT&T is gsm. Running two networks is very expensive that's why they rid of Nextel and used their low frequency band to enhance their coverage.

Blah blah blah. Here's my take:
As a former Sprint customer who left for T-mobile: No. Sprint needs to be taken out back, shot between the proverbial eyes, and then its assets divided into tiny pieces and sold off at auction.

Blah blah blah. Here's my take:
As a former Sprint customer who left for T-mobile: No. Sprint needs to be taken out back, shot between the proverbial eyes, and then its assets divided into tiny pieces and sold off at auction.

What you're not understanding is that sprints a different network they replaced the backhaul and have 3 bands. 800 mhz for in building coverage and it travels much farther. 1900 which is their basic band and 2500 which has been shown to pass 1 gb per second download . Not to mention unlimited data with faster speeds than AT&T and Verizon.

Don't talk about the network if you do not know what is really going on. Have you heard of network vision and do you know that sprint was acquired by SoftBank who had loads of money. Also when they acquired clearwire that made sprint have more sprectrum than all the other carriers combined. This deal is highly unikely any way because sprint is cdma and AT&T is gsm. Running two networks is very expensive that's why they rid of Nextel and used their low frequency band to enhance their coverage.

Oh, I know all about that. What I meant was Sprint will have to go GSM rather than T-Mo going CDMA. In a sense Sprint will augment T-Mo as their frequencies will be added to T-Mo's. And I agree that this deal is unlikely because of the cost of shifting a network to another standard/protocol although SoftBank's ambitions might conquer those misgivings.

Ugh. This reminds me why I insisted on going with an unlocked phone and no-contract wireless plan. T-Mobile's flexible plan options (and their $30/month prepaid plan with unlimited/5 GB 4G data and 100 voice minutes in particular), were among the main reasons I finally took the plunge and bought an iPhone 5s. If this acquisition goes through and Sprint starts playing games with the plan options to try and milk more out of prepaid customers like me, I'm glad that I have an unlocked phone that I can carry over to another carrier that might value my business more.

IMO, the market is moving more in the direction that T-Mob has laid out. For years, I refused to go with a smartphone because of the telcos' overpriced contracts and complicated subsidies. T-Mobile's offerings over the past year have been very consumer-centric, and they've been adding customers by just simplifying the choices, and making the service more transparent. Yes, their network has more gaps than AT&T or Verizon, but to me it's a worthwhile trade off just to be free of the contractual games that they play.

Oh, I know all about that. What I meant was Sprint will have to go GSM rather than T-Mo going CDMA. In a sense Sprint will augment T-Mo as their frequencies will be added to T-Mo's. And I agree that this deal is unlikely because of the cost of shifting a network to another standard/protocol although SoftBank's ambitions might conquer those misgivings.

I'm sure they still have nightmares about Nextel, which was gsm. Why would they put themselves in the same situation even if they have billions. Running two networks is very expensive.

What does a CDMA carrier want with a GSM carrier? That sounds like a headache in the making.

when T-Mobile bought MetroPCS earlier this year, it was exactly this, but with the order reversed: What does a GSM carrier [i.e. T-Mobile] want with a CDMA carrier [i.e. MetroPCS]? That sounds like a headache in the making...

Since they merged, The Bigger "they" seems to be "making out" pretty well...

Both the DoJ and the FCC have already expressed that they don't want any of the Big 4 Mobile Carriers merging. For a company like Sprint, who is having a slow rollout of their LTE network, that along with how many current and former subscribers' complaints of how badly they're run from top to bottom, to possibly acquire T-Mobile, a company who has had a great year for 2013, this would be a nightmare for many consumers! Please have both the DoJ and the FCC intervene to block this possible acquisition immediately! In the meantime, let's find a way to start a petition to block this acquisition. God knows that Softbank's CEO will not stop at making a large bid!

I also recall the DoJ indicating that they would like to see four competing major telcos. The part that doesn't add up is why T-Mobile's value in this potential merger is roughly half of what it was with the unsuccessful AT&T merger. And why would T-Mobile be valued less than Nextel at the time of their merger with Sprint? Is this just a case of T-Mobile's stock getting pounded, thus making them an attractive takeover target now that their finances are on the upswing?

No question T-Mobile had a great year, and I think their "uncarrier" approach has resonated with consumers. Sprint has multiple issues, but has a parent company that seems more eager to break the bank than T-Mobile's. My main concern is whether Sprint would try to mold T-Mobile back into a contract-centric service, with the same opaque and confusing options that the other telcos offer.

IMO, having a triopoly of AT&T/Verizon/Sprint dominating the U.S. wireless market would be a disaster for consumers. T-Mobile has already moved the needle to some extent. For example, I doubt that AT&T would have announced their reduced off-contract pricing tiers if not for T-Mobile going to no-contract plans. I don't know if it's applicable, but Canada has an existing triopoly with wireless service and those companies effectively move in lock-step (ironically, they're heavily lobbying to keep Verizon from entering the Canadian market as a potential 4th national player). Would a combined Sprint/T-Mobile continue making the disruptive moves that T-Mobile has made? If the answer is no, then this merger absolutely should be blocked.

What you're not understanding is that sprints a different network they replaced the backhaul and have 3 bands. 800 mhz for in building coverage and it travels much farther. 1900 which is their basic band and 2500 which has been shown to pass 1 gb per second download . Not to mention unlimited data with faster speeds than AT&T and Verizon.

Yet it still drops my calls in Los Angeles, not to mention very limited LTE!!! We're in Los Angeles people, WTF! Oh and let's not forget they were bought out by that F@%#ing TOOL who keeps playing games with Apple! I say switch to T-Mobile and boycott the douche!

when T-Mobile bought MetroPCS earlier this year, it was exactly this, but with the order reversed: What does a GSM carrier [i.e. T-Mobile] want with a CDMA carrier [i.e. MetroPCS]? That sounds like a headache in the making...

Since they merged, The Bigger "they" seems to be "making out" pretty well...

I think it is a little different. T-Mobile which has Nationwide coverage is essentially transitioning all of Metro PCs customers over to T-Mobile's GSM network, and using the CDMA frequencies for LTE.

What you're not understanding is that sprints a different network they replaced the backhaul and have 3 bands. 800 mhz for in building coverage and it travels much farther. 1900 which is their basic band and 2500 which has been shown to pass 1 gb per second download . Not to mention unlimited data with faster speeds than AT&T and Verizon.

The number of major carriers needed to avoid tacit collusion is probably six to eight. A reduction from four major carriers to three would result in a massive increase in tacit collusion with consumers forced to pay higher prices for worse service. The anti-trust authorities should prohibit any mergers involving any of the big four carriers. If two small (or regional) carriers want to merge, that should be allowed.

You mean just like how every manufacturer abandoned Android when Google made their own phones... Or how every manufacturer stopped making PCs and Surface tablets when Microsoft got into the exact same market? Nope.

What does a CDMA carrier want with a GSM carrier? That sounds like a headache in the making.

T-Mobile is GSM and just bought Metro PCS which is CDMA. But is reality that point is moot now with network vision and VoLTE coming fairly soon. The Nextel merger was a disaster for sure but I imagine a lot was learned from that fiasco and those mistakes would not be repeated.

If you include pre-paid and MVNO customers the actual number of people using Sprint right now is right around 55 million. They must be doing something right to have 55 million customers choose their network. It always amazes me that people extrapolate their poor experiences often years ago or from their small neck of the woods and indicts a carrier based on that. Quite simply the 55 million number speak for itself. If these people weren't getting good or at least acceptable service they would be with someone else.

Unfortunately for iPhone users the 5s is not a tri-band LTE phone. Since it is not tri-band it cannot use the new Sprint Spark feature which can allow peak LTE speeds up to 60Mbps. Considering that Sprint is the only carrier left that allows unlimited LTE data I would think more people would be pulling for them to succeed instead of hoping they fail.

They wouldn’t NEED anyone else’s network if they had their own. Everyone with an iPhone would jump ship to Apple’s network.

Because Apple wouldn't cap, throttle, overcharge, or otherwise treat their users like Schmidt.

REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT. REMOVE THE DRAFT.

Sprint wants the customers; not the network. Personally I don't want Sprint to fail as a company but I also don't want them to own T-Mobile either.

All the major providers have areas of poor service but sprint seems to have more in the larger cities. My experience with them is that they over promise and under-deliver. Often they just flat out lie about coverage. I left for T-Mo 2 months ago and the difference has been night and day. Haven't looked back and don't want to end back on that train wreck of a network. Their offers of unlimited data are useless so long as their network is so slow.

I hate the way the large telcos take advantage of the public. Across the board they treat their customers like trash, over charge and rarely offer value to their customers. T-Mo's new customer centric strategy has been a breath of fresh air

They wouldn’t NEED anyone else’s network if they had their own. Everyone with an iPhone would jump ship to Apple’s network.

Because Apple wouldn't cap, throttle, overcharge, or otherwise treat their users like Schmidt.

Owning, running, maintaining, expanding, and building out a network is no easy feat. I seriously doubt Apple or any other handset maker would ever even consider buying a network but it is fun to speculate. If Apple bought T-Mobile would they suddenly stop supporting over half their customers that use Android? Would they only sell iPhones? What makes you think every iPhone customer would switch to Apple? I am an iPhone customer and unless they could beat my current plan on price, features, coverage there would be little incentive for me to switch. Apple would have to compete for iPhone customers just like carriers do today and I just don't see people mindlessly switching to an Apple owned carrier simply for the fact that it is owned by Apple. They would have to offer an attractive enough plan and robust enough network to attract any churn. If you only ever read forums you would think everyone hates their carrier when in fact most are quite happy and have no desire to switch. Getting customers to switch carriers is a very hard process.

Owning, running, maintaining, expanding, and building out a network is no easy feat. I seriously doubt Apple or any other handset maker would ever even consider buying a network but it is fun to speculate.

Sure, but they did! Supposedly they were told that they’d legally have to allow Android and others on it, so they decided against it for now.

If Apple bought T-Mobile would they suddenly stop supporting over half their customers that use Android? Would they only sell iPhones?

T-Mobile as a company would stop existing if Apple bought them.

What makes you think every iPhone customer would switch to Apple?

It’s Apple.

I am an iPhone customer and unless they could beat my current plan on price, features, coverage there would be little incentive for me to switch.

That’s only the easiest possible thing in the world to do.

Apple would have to compete for iPhone customers just like carriers do today

“Do you want the same crap you’ve had for the last six years, or would you like unlimited, uncapped, unthrottled, unregulated everything, forever, for less money?

Newest article I could find most articles didn't mention their acquisition of spectrum giving them more than all carriers combined.

I've already told you, and others have too. It's really simple to understand. If you LISTEN instead of talking at me, instead of shilling for Sprint, you would understand what I and others in this thread are saying. It boils down to: I had Sprint, they sucked, they treat their customers like shit, their customer service people play all kind of games, I left Sprint, took my business elsewhere, my life got better, and I'm never going back. That's not ignorant, that's called first hand experience. And you know what? You know the saying "The customer is always right"? First rule of customer relations. I'm right. No--I'm serious. Even Sprint's own customer retention specialists know not to call customers "ignorant" or blow smoke about frequencies and some signal theory when the reason you're leaving Sprint has nothing to do with that. I don't give a rats ass if you get an erection for CDMA or the 1900Mhz spectrum. I would never go back to Sprint. And that is a good thing.

For one thing, they're still learning JavaScript. It's gonna take a while. Also, like most web developers I know, they're an elite bunch of geeks who thinks everyone should just use Chrome because that's their favorite browser and isn't Google awesome to geeks?

When did I say I had experienced crap service for the last 6 years? I already have unlimited, uncapped, unthrottled service for a very competitive price. I am happy with my service, coverage, and also the price I pay. If Apple bought T-Mobile and offered great coverage and better prices I would certainly consider them on those merits but I wouldn't jump ship simply because it is Apple. That would be pretty foolish. People that are happy with their carrier never have to deal with customer support and will rarely if ever bother posting how happy they are in a forum. The only people you ever hear from are the very unhappy and dissatisfied. Who is your phone carrier by the way?

I've already told you, and others have too. It's really simple to understand. If you LISTEN instead of talking at me, instead of shilling for Sprint, you would understand what I and others in this thread are saying. It boils down to: I had Sprint, they sucked, they treat their customers like shit, their customer service people play all kind of games, I left Sprint, took my business elsewhere, my life got better, and I'm never going back. That's not ignorant, that's called first hand experience. And you know what? You know the saying "The customer is always right"? First rule of customer relations. I'm right. No--I'm serious. Even Sprint's own customer retention specialists know not to call customers "ignorant" or blow smoke about frequencies and some signal theory when the reason you're leaving Sprint has nothing to do with that. I don't give a rats ass if you get an erection for CDMA or the 1900Mhz spectrum. I would never go back to Sprint. And that is a good thing.

I don't doubt what you said to be 100% true and accurate. But you do realize that for the other 55 million using Sprint's network your situation might be very different. I don't call customer care often but when I have they were friendly and very professional. I get good coverage and fast LTE speeds as high as 23Mbps (average of around 14Mbps) which might be slower than the others but in reality anything over 5Mbps on a phone is overkill. It is not like I am downloading huge files like I would on a computer. Sprint Spark will actually allow for some of the fastest LTE speeds in the country and is already working in several major markets. The bottom line is everyone's situation is different. Even people that only live 1 mile apart might have completely different reception and opinions about the same carrier. If you are not happy then by all means leave but don't then extrapolate your bad experience and say the entire Sprint networks sucks because that has not been my experience either locally or on my many trips where I also got good coverage. I took a road trip with a friend driving over 1,000 miles and he had AT&T. We took some back roads and I never did not have coverage for the entire trip and he rarely had any coverage while we were off the beaten track.